lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 64,969 
Likes: 46,141
|
Post by lordroel on Jun 28, 2016 14:35:52 GMT
In 1830, the United Kingdom of the Netherlands had its southern provinces succeed during the Belgian Revolution, on December 20th 1830 the London Conference or also known as the "Belgian Congress" brought together five major European powers (Austria, Britain, France, Prussia and Russia) decided the future of Belgium, one plan called the T alleyrand partition plan for Belgium was proposed but was rejected and instead a unified and Francophone Belgian state was created. Talleyrand partition plan for Belgium
- The Talleyrand partition was a proposed plan developed at the London Conference by French ambassador to Britain Charles Maurice de Talleyrand, to partition Belgium and would consist of the following: - The province of Antwerp — except the city of Antwerp itself — and Limburg, west of the Meuse river — except Maastricht — would remain to the Netherlands, as would a small part of the province of Brabant, the former Oranje Lordship of Diest;. - The parts of the provinces of Liège, of Limburg and of Namur east of the Meuse river as well as the cities of Maastricht, Namur and Liège and the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg would go to Prussia;. - Part of the province of East Flanders, nearly all of the province of Brabant, the province of Hainaut and the province of Namur west of the Meuse would be assigned to France;. - West Flanders, most of East Flanders, including Zeeuws-Vlaanderen (which was not generally considered to be part of the Southern Netherlands as it had been under northern Dutch rule for centuries), and the city of Antwerp were to form the Free State of Antwerp, under British protection. It would have been more or less a restored County of Flanders at the river Scheldt. Map of the Talleyrand partition plan for Belgium
 |
|
tfsmith121
Chief petty officer
War is the remedy our enemies have chosen
Posts: 105
Likes: 1
|
Post by tfsmith121 on Jun 28, 2016 20:01:21 GMT
Humm; the thinking behind the split between Prussia and France seems obvious - what was the French thinking behind the "Free State of Antwerp"? Just to give the British "something" or their alleged strategic interest in the Channel Coast?
Seems like a 3-way split between France, the Netherlands, and Prussia would have been simpler...
Best,
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 23,494
Likes: 12,090
|
Post by stevep on Jun 28, 2016 20:24:48 GMT
Humm; the thinking behind the split between Prussia and France seems obvious - what was the French thinking behind the "Free State of Antwerp"? Just to give the British "something" or their alleged strategic interest in the Channel Coast? Seems like a 3-way split between France, the Netherlands, and Prussia would have been simpler... Best, Given how important Britain viewed it to keep the ports in the region outside the hands of another great power then I suspect that was the motivation. Putting them into a greater Netherlands, when the region had just seen a revolt against Dutch rule might not be that practical. Also how strong would the Dutch state be to prevent the region falling into probably French hands. Not sure how much interest there would be in Britain taking over such a territory however, given its reluctance to having a major commitment on the continent. It might be seen as the best choice if the other two powers decided to go ahead with their parts of the partition. Ultimately I think it was too close to Napoleon for the other powers to be cmfortable with French annexations so France was isolated and the plan came to nothing. |
|
tfsmith121
Chief petty officer
War is the remedy our enemies have chosen
Posts: 105
Likes: 1
|
Post by tfsmith121 on Jun 28, 2016 20:49:17 GMT
Understood, but given the number of French ports on the Channel coast, the Cotentin, Brittany, and points south, seems like that horse had already left the barn ...
So the obvious route to achieve the same end is an alliance with France, which of course both London and Paris blew hot and cold upon for most of the next century or so.
Interesting this predates by three decades the rise of Prussia; one wonders if a Franco-Prussian alliance that shared out the buffer states would have endured ... seems unlikely it could have been more tense than the historical relationship.
Best,
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 64,969
Likes: 46,141
|
Post by lordroel on Jun 29, 2016 3:41:00 GMT
Understood, but given the number of French ports on the Channel coast, the Cotentin, Brittany, and points south, seems like that horse had already left the barn ... So the obvious route to achieve the same end is an alliance with France, which of course both London and Paris blew hot and cold upon for most of the next century or so. Interesting this predates by three decades the rise of Prussia; one wonders if a Franco-Prussian alliance that shared out the buffer states would have endured ... seems unlikely it could have been more tense than the historical relationship. Best, I do not think there will be a Franco-Prussian alliance, the tension will still build up between them resulting in the Franco-Prussian War of 1870, also if there is no Kingdom of Belgium than there will be no Leopold I of Belgium who can not arranged the marriage of his niece, Queen Victoria, to his nephew, Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha unless he was king of the Free State of Antwerp at that time. |
|
tfsmith121
Chief petty officer
War is the remedy our enemies have chosen
Posts: 105
Likes: 1
|
Post by tfsmith121 on Jun 29, 2016 3:59:05 GMT
Sure, but a Franco-Prussian alliance in 1830 puts the Orleanists and the Hohenzollerns together, and although Louis-Philippe was m re liberal than Charles X, all three houses were fairly conservative in the larger scheme of things. If they agreed to carve up what became Belgium, not certain what Britain could have or would have done about it. Adding territory to France certainly is not going to hurt LP... might prevent or reduce 1832.
If the French - even under the Orleanists - ally with the Prussians, for example, it could have some very interesting ripples, including in 1848.
Best,
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 64,969
Likes: 46,141
|
Post by lordroel on Jun 29, 2016 13:32:58 GMT
Sure, but a Franco-Prussian alliance in 1830 puts the Orleanists and the Hohenzollerns together, and although Louis-Philippe was m re liberal than Charles X, all three houses were fairly conservative in the larger scheme of things. If they agreed to carve up what became Belgium, not certain what Britain could have or would have done about it. Adding territory to France certainly is not going to hurt LP... might prevent or reduce 1832. If the French - even under the Orleanists - ally with the Prussians, for example, it could have some very interesting ripples, including in 1848. Best, What would the French reaction be with the formation of Germany by Prussia. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 23,494
Likes: 12,090
|
Post by stevep on Jun 29, 2016 15:27:29 GMT
Sure, but a Franco-Prussian alliance in 1830 puts the Orleanists and the Hohenzollerns together, and although Louis-Philippe was m re liberal than Charles X, all three houses were fairly conservative in the larger scheme of things. If they agreed to carve up what became Belgium, not certain what Britain could have or would have done about it. Adding territory to France certainly is not going to hurt LP... might prevent or reduce 1832. If the French - even under the Orleanists - ally with the Prussians, for example, it could have some very interesting ripples, including in 1848. Best, What would the French reaction be with the formation of Germany by Prussia. Presuming there were no major buitterflies I suspect France would be a lot more worried about the Prussia victory in 1866. This might make them more rather than less likely to clash with Prussia/Germany. Presuming they still lost I could see Germany, as well as Alsace-Lorraine, probably also annexing the former French Belgium as it includes some important industrial areas and straightens the line, since otherwise the Prussia Belgium is an exposed salient. That would really shift the balance of power even further in Germany's favour. It also means that a later clash would give them a continous front with no neutral Belgium to invade so Germany might have to launch a frontal attack on French defences but are unlikely to attack the British protected Antwerp free-state so may be less chance of Britain getting involved, at least initially. If Germany doesn't annex the French lands and we still have a WWI type clash then the Germans have interor lines thanks to the Luxembourg sailent but France would have the industry of southern Belgium and there's no surprise attack through a neutral state so things might go harder for them. |
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 64,969
Likes: 46,141
|
Post by lordroel on Jun 29, 2016 15:36:55 GMT
What would the French reaction be with the formation of Germany by Prussia. Presuming there were no major buitterflies I suspect France would be a lot more worried about the Prussia victory in 1866. This might make them more rather than less likely to clash with Prussia/Germany. Presuming they still lost I could see Germany, as well as Alsace-Lorraine, probably also annexing the former French Belgium as it includes some important industrial areas and straightens the line, since otherwise the Prussia Belgium is an exposed salient. That would really shift the balance of power even further in Germany's favour. It also means that a later clash would give them a continous front with no neutral Belgium to invade so Germany might have to launch a frontal attack on French defences but are unlikely to attack the British protected Antwerp free-state so may be less chance of Britain getting involved, at least initially. If Germany doesn't annex the French lands and we still have a WWI type clash then the Germans have interor lines thanks to the Luxembourg sailent but France would have the industry of southern Belgium and there's no surprise attack through a neutral state so things might go harder for them. Still wonder who the British put in charge of Antwerp, it most likely will not be a republic. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 23,494
Likes: 12,090
|
Post by stevep on Jun 29, 2016 19:38:35 GMT
Presuming there were no major buitterflies I suspect France would be a lot more worried about the Prussia victory in 1866. This might make them more rather than less likely to clash with Prussia/Germany. Presuming they still lost I could see Germany, as well as Alsace-Lorraine, probably also annexing the former French Belgium as it includes some important industrial areas and straightens the line, since otherwise the Prussia Belgium is an exposed salient. That would really shift the balance of power even further in Germany's favour. It also means that a later clash would give them a continous front with no neutral Belgium to invade so Germany might have to launch a frontal attack on French defences but are unlikely to attack the British protected Antwerp free-state so may be less chance of Britain getting involved, at least initially. If Germany doesn't annex the French lands and we still have a WWI type clash then the Germans have interor lines thanks to the Luxembourg sailent but France would have the industry of southern Belgium and there's no surprise attack through a neutral state so things might go harder for them. Still wonder who the British put in charge of Antwerp, it most likely will not be a republic. Not at that period of time I very much doubt. Britain was far too reactionary in the aftermath of the American and French revolutions. Presume some sort of principality would be established. Question might be whether they would appease local sentiment by selecting a Catholic ruler? |
|
tfsmith121
Chief petty officer
War is the remedy our enemies have chosen
Posts: 105
Likes: 1
|
Post by tfsmith121 on Jun 30, 2016 3:09:04 GMT
What would the French reaction be with the formation of Germany by Prussia. Presuming there were no major buitterflies I suspect France would be a lot more worried about the Prussia victory in 1866. This might make them more rather than less likely to clash with Prussia/Germany. Presuming they still lost I could see Germany, as well as Alsace-Lorraine, probably also annexing the former French Belgium as it includes some important industrial areas and straightens the line, since otherwise the Prussia Belgium is an exposed salient. That would really shift the balance of power even further in Germany's favour. It also means that a later clash would give them a continous front with no neutral Belgium to invade so Germany might have to launch a frontal attack on French defences but are unlikely to attack the British protected Antwerp free-state so may be less chance of Britain getting involved, at least initially. If Germany doesn't annex the French lands and we still have a WWI type clash then the Germans have interor lines thanks to the Luxembourg sailent but France would have the industry of southern Belgium and there's no surprise attack through a neutral state so things might go harder for them. ===================================================================================================== The thing is, with a Franco-Prussian alliance in 1830, isn't it just as likely 1848 ends in the Frankfurt Diet's request to Wilhelm I to take the throne in a largely constitutional monarchy-type of Empire? |
|
tfsmith121
Chief petty officer
War is the remedy our enemies have chosen
Posts: 105
Likes: 1
|
Post by tfsmith121 on Jun 30, 2016 3:13:33 GMT
If the French (under the Orleanists as CMs) and Prussians ally in 1830 to split the Low Countries, given the general level of butterflies inherent over the following two decades, isn't the Frankfurt Diet's request that Wilhelm I take the imperial crown as a constitutional monarch as likely as anything else?
In which case, if Austria objects, a F-P alliance against the Austrians seems as likely as anything else ... have to expect some butterflies.
Best,
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 64,969
Likes: 46,141
|
Post by lordroel on Jun 30, 2016 3:16:26 GMT
If the French (under the Orleanists as CMs) and Prussians ally in 1830 to split the Low Countries, given the general level of butterflies inherent over the following two decades, isn't the Frankfurt Diet's request that Wilhelm I take the imperial crown as a constitutional monarch as likely as anything else? In which case, if Austria objects, a F-P alliance against the Austrians seems as likely as anything else ... have to expect some butterflies. Best, So there might be a change that the First Schleswig War (1848–1851),Second Schleswig War (1864) and the Austro-Prussian War (1866) might be butterflied away if there was a Franco-Prussian alliance. |
|
tfsmith121
Chief petty officer
War is the remedy our enemies have chosen
Posts: 105
Likes: 1
|
Post by tfsmith121 on Jun 30, 2016 5:43:52 GMT
Certainly possible ... a federal German constitutional monarchy in 1848 and a French one that survives are both pretty big swings, all in all. Complete speculation, of course.  |
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 64,969
Likes: 46,141
|
Post by lordroel on Jun 30, 2016 13:12:52 GMT
Certainly possible ... a federal German constitutional monarchy in 1848 and a French one that survives are both pretty big swings, all in all. Complete speculation, of course. Would the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg who already was a member of the German Confederation as one of three states that was ruled by foreign monarchs have the King of the Netherlands who was Grand Duke of Luxembourg switched to the King of Prussia who know becomes the Grand Duke of Luxembourg with Luxembourg being transfer to Prussia under the Talleyrand partition plan. |
|
